Wagering settlement methods for casino games

ABSTRACT

The invention comprises methods of settling wagers in a game with one or more Player/Dealer pools. The invention includes a mechanism of specifying a subset of wagers that the Player/Dealer pool is used to settle. It also includes a method of limiting the amount of a player wager the Player/Dealer pool can win or not allowing the Player/Dealer pool to win any of the wager if it does contain enough funds to pay the maximum possible amount the player might win on that wager. It includes an optional mechanism to make these methods work effectively by settling wagers in two or more passes around the table.

CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application is a Continuation in Part of co-pending U.S. patentapplication Ser. No. 11/397,302, filed Apr. 3, 2006, the entirety ofwhich is incorporated by reference herein.

BACKGROUND

1. Field of the Invention

The present invention relates to gaming and to wagering games. Moreparticularly, the present invention relates to a group of games whereone or more players, designated as the “Player/Dealer”, puts up a poolor pools of money, the other players in the game make wagers, thewinning player wagers are paid from the Player/Dealer's pool(s), thelosing player wagers are paid to the Player/Dealer(s).

2. The Prior Art

Numerous casino wagering games are known in the prior art. In a wageringgame, there must be a method of paying the winners. Three fundingmethods are typically used in casino games.

The most common method is where the casino or the “house” funds thewagers. The casino pays players who win, and the casino is paid theplayer wagers when the players lose. A game played against the casino istypically called a “banking game.”

The second method is used in poker and pari-mutuel wagering. All thefunds of the players are placed in a common pool. The game is played,and the money in the pool is paid to the winner or winners. The casinoor racetrack may remove a percentage from the pool before the wagers arepaid, or all of the pool may be paid to the winner or winners.

The third method is primarily used in jurisdictions where banking gamesare not allowed. In its simplest form, the players take turns taking onthe role of “the house.” That player may be designated the“Player/Dealer.” The Player/Dealer puts up a wager or pool of money, andall of the other players wager against the Player/Dealer. When a playerwins, (s)he is paid from the Player/Dealer wager. When a player loses,the losing wager is paid to the Player/Dealer.

In a casino, the option to be Player/Dealer moves in a systematic way.Usually, each player has the option to be Player/Dealer for two hands,and then the option is offered to the player to his left. If a playerchooses not to accept the option, it is offered to the next player onthe left.

Another variation in some jurisdictions is that the Player/Dealer may bea representative of the casino for some hands and may be a player forother hands. The representative of the casino is given the same optionto be Player/Dealer as the other players. For the purposes of thisinvention, the source of the funds for the Player/Dealer pool does notmatter.

Some of the most common games played with a Player/Dealer are blackjack,Pai Gow, Pai Gow Poker, Pan 9, EasyPoker, Caribbean Stud, and Fast 9.

There are three key features of the use of Player/Dealer wager in thecurrent art that have a negative effect on these games: 1) aPlayer/Dealer wager may not be large enough to cover all wagers made byother players; 2) when another player wins or loses a wager against thePlayer/Dealer, only the amount won or lost is removed from action in thePlayer/Dealer pool; and 3) when a player's wager increases during playor a bonus is earned, the Player/Dealer pool is used to fully settle theoriginal wager before the increase or bonus is settled. There areseveral ways that more than one person can fund the Player/Dealer pool,but these ways do not change any of these features.

The first feature is that in most jurisdictions the casino may notrequire the Player/Dealer to wager enough money to cover the totalamount the other players might win. In many cases, the law forbidsrequiring the Player/Dealer to cover all wagers. As a result, someplayers may not get “action” on their wagers. The wagers are settled aslong as the Player/Dealer pool has funds left to cover the wagers. Theremaining wagers are returned to the players.

The second feature of the prior art is that settling a wager alwaysinvolves removing an amount equal to the amount won or lost from thePlayer/Dealer pool. If a player wins, that amount is paid to the winningplayer from the pool. If that player loses, his wager is given to thePlayer/Dealer, and the same amount is removed from the Player/Dealerpool and returned to the Player/Dealer. These funds can be said to be“retired” and are no longer at risk. In the prior art, if less than theoriginal wager changes hands, such as when a blackjack playersurrenders, this lesser amount is retired. If no money changes hands, nomoney is retired. As a result, the Player/Dealer can neither win norlose more than his/her wager.

For example, if the Player/Dealer wagers $200, and the first playerwagers $100 and wins, $100 is taken from the Player/Dealer wager andpaid to the first player. Now there is $100 left in the Player/Dealerwager. If the second player has wagered $100, and loses, the $100 theplayer wagered is paid to the Player/Dealer and the last $100 of thePlayer/Dealer's wager is returned to the Player/Dealer. Any remainingplayers will automatically get their wagers back, since there is no moremoney left in the Player/Dealer pool. The players are said to “get noaction” on their bets.

This is a problem because, when players get no action, it is undesirableto both the players and the casinos. Most players wager because theywant the excitement of the wager and to have a chance to win. When theyget no action, they get neither. Also, when a player gets no action, inmany casinos the casino must refund the fee a player may have paid toplay the game. This costs the casino revenue.

The third feature of the prior art is that the Player/Dealer pool isused to fully settle any original wager before any bonus is paid or anyadditional wagers are settled. No money is held in reserve for payingbonuses or settling additional wagers.

In a blackjack game, a player with a blackjack is usually paid 3 to 2.This means that a player who wagers $100 will win $150 if he makes ablackjack. However, if there is only $100 in the Player/Dealer pool, theplayer will only win $100. And if the player loses, he loses $100.Normally the player risks $100 and has the chance to win $150, but witha small Player/Dealer pool, the player risks $100 and can only win $100.The result is that the Player/Dealer advantage increases significantly.

A similar problem can result when a player wants to increase his wagerduring the play of a hand. The most common examples are splitting pairsand doubling down in blackjack. In blackjack, a player who is dealt apair as his first two cards can add a second wager and split the pair toform two hands. So a player who originally wagered $100 will have $100on each of his hands. However, if the Player/Dealer pool only has $100,the second hand will receive no action, unless there is a tie on thefirst hand. So the player loses the chance to win $200. Again, thePlayer/Dealer advantage increases if the pool is small.

The situation is similar for doubling down in blackjack. A player maychoose to double his wager after seeing his first two cards. The playerreceives exactly one more card to complete his hand. Normally this is apowerful weapon in the arsenal of the blackjack player. When the oddsare in his favor, he can double his wager and frequently double his win.However, if there is not enough money in the Player/Dealer pool to coverthe double wager, the player's advantage disappears. If the playerwagers $100 and there is only $100 in the Player/Dealer pool, there isno reason to double down. This is another example of how thePlayer/Dealer advantage goes up if the pool is small.

While these examples show cases with one player against thePlayer/Dealer, even with many players, it is to the advantage of thePlayer/Dealer to wager less than the players might win. This increasesthe advantage for the Player/Dealer and the rate at which the otherplayers can expect to lose.

This is bad for the players and the casino. As mentioned earlier, oneresult of smaller Player/Dealer pools is that players often don't getaction on their wagers. This leads to unhappy players and less casinorevenue. In addition, an increased advantage for the Player/Dealer hurtsthe players and casino as well. Players who lose quickly have less fun.They are likely to run out of money, quit sooner, and are less likely toreturn for more play. Since the casino typically makes money by charginga fee for each hand in a game with a Player/Dealer, all of thesesituations reduce casino revenue.

There are many variations of how the Player/Dealer's wager is funded,but none of them solve these problems. There are three basicvariations: 1) a simple pool; 2) a shared pool; and 3) two or moredistinct “sub-pools” (often called “wagering behind” or “bankingbehind”). More complex variations may occur by combining these basicfunding methods.

The entire amount wagered on the Player/Dealer hand will be called the“Player/Dealer pool.” When this pool is made up of more than one part,and one part is settled before the others, each part will be called a“sub-pool”. If there is more than one sub-pool, the sub-pools areassigned a priority, with one sub-pool being the first to be used tosettle wagers and the others being used in sequence. The first sub-poolto be used will be called the “first sub-pool”, the next one the “secondsub-pool”, etc.

With a simple pool, one person funds the entire Player/Dealer pool. Anywinning wagers are paid out of this pool and losing wagers are paid tothe person who funded it, as long as the pool is large enough to coverall the wagers. In essence, there is only a “first sub-pool.”

With a shared pool two or more players share in funding thePlayer/Dealer pool. There is still only one sub-pool, but more than oneplayer funds it. If the players share equally in funding the pool, thosefunding it would share equally in wins or losses. If they do not shareequally in the funding, they share in the wins and losses in proportionto their shares of the pool. For example, one player might put up $100and another player might put up $50. In this case the first player wouldwin two-thirds of any money won by the Player/Dealer and lose two-thirdsof any loss. The second player would win or lose one-third. In theory,any number of players and any ratio of bets may be combined into asingle bank to fund the Player/Dealer pool.

The third variation involves two or more distinct sub-pools, where oneor more of the sub-pools are said to wager “behind” the first sub-pool.For example if there are two sub-pools of $100, and three player wagersof $50, the first sub-pool might be used to settle the first two wagers,and the second sub-pool would be used to settle the third wager.However, there are many possibilities. One of the first two wagers mightresult in a tie or “push” where no money changes hands. In this case,the first sub-pool would cover all three wagers. Or if this were ablackjack game and the first player doubled down and doubled his wagerto $100, the first sub-pool would only cover this wager, and the othersub-pool would cover the second and third wagers.

The variations of how the Player/Dealer pool is funded do not solve theproblems with the current art. No matter how the Player/Dealer pool isfunded, there is still a strong financial incentive to wager less thanthe full amount needed to cover all possible wagers.

While sub-pools provide a mechanism to increase the size of thePlayer/Dealer pool, the financial incentives don't support this. In mostgames with a Player/Dealer pool, the first sub-pool has a strongermathematical advantage than a second or third sub-pool. Depending on thesize of the pools, the second and/or third sub-pool may have adisadvantage, even if the first sub-pool has a big advantage. This iseven true in a game like Pai Gow Poker, where no bonuses are paid andplayers cannot increase their wagers. Accordingly, savvy players willusually not want to be part of a second or third pool.

Two other features of the way money is currently retired can make theseproblems worse. In some circumstances no money changes hands and in somecircumstances less than the original bet may change hands. With thecurrent state of the art, under those circumstances, only the amountthat changes hands is retired from the Player/Dealer funds.

The most common example of no money exchanging hands is a “push”, whichusually happens in case of a tie. For example, in blackjack, if bothplayers make a hand with a value of 20, it is a tie and no money changeshands. In games with a Player/Dealer, no money is retired from thePlayer/Dealer funds when this occurs. Due to the mathematicaldistribution of outcomes, in most games this results in a disadvantagefor a player who funds a second or third Player/Dealer sub-pool,discouraging players from making such wagers.

The most common example of less money exchanging hands is the surrenderoption in blackjack. If a player doesn't like his chances in blackjackafter his first two cards, in many casinos the player may choose tosurrender one-half of his/her wager and get the other half back. Forexample, a player who has bet $100 gives up $50, but also gets $50 back.There is no further action on this player's hand and it is discarded. Ingames, with a Player/Dealer, typically the Player/Dealer receives theamount of the surrender and that amount is retired, not the originalwager. In this example, $50 would be returned to the Player/Dealer andtaken out of action.

It is a purpose of this invention to eliminate these problems from gameswith a Player/Dealer, by improving the ways funds are retired andchanging the way funds are allocated when there are bonuses andadditional wagers. It is a further purpose to provide mechanisms tosimply implement the new settlement methods.

The field of this invention is any game where there is a Player/Dealer.This description calls a play of game starting with the wagers andending with the settling of the wagers a “hand.” This is the commondesignation of a play of games such as blackjack, Pai Gow Poker, andmost other card games. However, the field of the invention covers othergames that are not played with cards as well. For example, there areversions of craps, the dice game, which are played with a Player/Dealer.In this case, a complete play is called a “roll” and not a “hand”. Theuse of the word “hand” simplifies the explanation, but does not limitthe field of the invention to card games or games where a complete playis called a “hand”.

SUMMARY

The invention comprises methods of settling wagers in a game with one ormore Player/Dealer pools. The invention includes a mechanism ofspecifying a subset of wagers that the Player/Dealer pool is used tosettle. It also includes a method of limiting the amount of a playerwager the Player/Dealer pool can win or not allowing the Player/Dealerpool to win any of the wager if it does contain enough funds to pay themaximum possible amount the player might win on that wager. It includesan optional mechanism to make these methods work effectively by settlingwagers in two or more passes around the table.

DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

FIG. 1 is a flowchart illustrating an exemplary embodiment of the methodof the present invention.

FIG. 2 is a flowchart illustrating an exemplary embodiment of a methodfor handling a push.

FIG. 3 is a flowchart illustrating an exemplary embodiment of the Baseand Reserve Bank mechanism of the present invention.

FIG. 4 is a flowchart illustrating an exemplary embodiment of theTwo-Pass Settlement mechanism of the present invention.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

Persons of ordinary skill in the art will realize that the followingdisclosure is illustrative only and not in any way limiting. Otherembodiments of the invention will readily suggest themselves to suchskilled persons having the benefit of this disclosure.

In the following description, the amount of money wagered at thebeginning of the hand, will be called the “original wager”. In ablackjack game, this is the amount placed at risk before the playerreceives his cards and before he considers options such as splittingpairs or doubling down which can increase the amount at risk. It is alsothe amount at risk before exercising an option like surrender thatreduces the amount the player has at risk.

In the following description, when a wager is settled, an amount ofmoney is removed from the Player/Dealer funds. Some or all of this moneymay be paid to the player, if the player has won a wager. Some or all ofthis money may be returned to the person(s) who provided thePlayer/Dealer funds. All of the money removed from the Player/Dealerfunds will be referred to as “retired”.

FIG. 1 illustrates an exemplary embodiment of the method of the presentinvention. Process 100 begins at reference numeral 102 where the ratioof the amount to be retired to the amount of the original wager isdetermined. At reference numeral 104, one player or a group of playersis designated as the Player/Dealer. As a result, all the other playersplay against this Player/Dealer. At reference numeral 106, each playerand the Player/Dealer then makes a wager. At reference numeral 108,hands are dealt and played. The outcomes of each hand are determined,and as a result, wagers are won and lost. At reference numeral 110, aplayer is selected. At reference numeral 112, the outcome for theselected player is determined.

At reference numeral 114, if the selected player has not won, any wagerslost by the selected player are paid to the Player/Dealer at referencenumeral 116. At reference numeral 118, funds are retired from thePlayer/Dealer wager. The amount of the retired funds is based on thepredetermined ratio and the player's original wager. At referencenumeral 126, if there are any other remaining players whose wager needsto be settled and there is money still left in the Player/Dealer wager,a player is selected from these remaining players at reference numeral110 and the selected player's outcome is determined as previouslydiscussed. If there are no remaining players whose wager needs to besettled or there is no money left in the Player/Dealer wager, then theprocess comes to an end. Optionally, the process may repeat at referencenumeral 104, where a Player/Dealer is once again designated.

At reference numeral 114, if the selected player has won, any wagers wonby the player are paid to the player from the Player/Dealer's wager atreference numeral 120. At reference numeral 122, it is determinedwhether or not the amount paid to the player covers the full amount tobe retired based on the predetermined ratio and the player's originalwager. If the amount paid does cover the full amount to be retired, thenit is determined whether or not there are any other remaining playerswhose wager needs to be settled and whether there is money still left inthe Player/Dealer wager at reference numeral 126. If the amount paiddoes not cover the full amount to be retired, the remaining differencebetween the amount paid and the full amount is retired from thePlayer/Dealer wager at reference numeral 124. The process then continueson to reference numeral 126 where, as previously discussed, it isdetermined whether or not there are any other remaining players whosewager needs to be settled and whether or not there is money still leftin the Player/Dealer wager.

For the description of an illustrative embodiment, the game of blackjackwill be used. Those of ordinary skill in the art will realize that thisinvention can be applied to other wagering games with a Player/Dealer.

In the illustrative embodiment, as each wager is settled, an amountequal to the maximum possible win for the player is retired from thePlayer/Dealer funds. Those of ordinary skill in the art will realizethat the amount retired could be any multiple of the original wager, afixed amount, or another formula might be used to determine the amountretired.

For this example, a blackjack game where players may split pairs onetime and may double after split will be used. In such a game, a playercould end up with a total of four times his original wager. While thiswill not occur very often, it is the maximum the player can win or loseon any hand. This is the basis for retiring wagers and reserving funds.

In the illustrative embodiment, whenever the wager for a player's handis fully settled, an amount equal to four times the original wager iseither paid to the player or retired from the Player/Dealer pool. Noneof these funds are used to settle any other wagers.

If there is not enough money in a Player/Dealer pool or sub-pool tocover four times the original wager, one-quarter of the pool is used tosettle the original wager, and the rest is used to settle any subsequentwagers. All of this pool is then retired after the wagers on this handare settled.

For example, if a player makes an original wager of $100 and wins $300,$300 is paid to the player and $100 more is retired from thePlayer/Dealer funds. The total retired equals four times the originalwager. If there is only $200 in the Player/Dealer pool, $50 is used tosettle the original wager and $50 is used to settle each additional $100wager. A $100 original wager has $400 in possible action. Since thePlayer/Dealer pool can only cover fifty percent of the $400 possibleaction, it only covers fifty percent of every individual wager.

In the preferred embodiment, the ratio of the size of the base pool tothe original wager determines the portion of each wager that is settled.Those of ordinary skill in the art will realize that other options areavailable when the Player/Dealer pool covers all the wagers by a player,even if the pool is not four-times the original wagers. For example,there might be a $100 original wager and a $300 Player/Dealer pool. Ifthere were only a total of $200 in wagers by the player, another optionwould be to cover the full $200 in wagers. In this variation, only ifthe player's wagers exceeded the $300 Player/Dealer pool would theplayer receive less than 100% action on each wager.

In the illustrative embodiment, if the player and Player/Dealer “push”and no money is to change hands, the full amount of four times theoriginal wager is retired. However, those of ordinary skill in the artwill realize that it is possible to have a version of the inventionwhere no money is retired when there is a push. In fact, it is possibleto have a version of this invention where money is retired only whenmoney changes hands, a version where money is only retired when there isa push, and a version where money is retired both when money changeshands and when there is a push. All three of these versions fall withinthe scope of this invention.

When funds are retired after a push, it could be the amount of theoriginal wager or a larger amount. Either amount is greater than thefunds that change hands, so both of these options fall within the scopeof the invention.

FIG. 2 illustrates an exemplary embodiment of a method of wageringsettlement for casino games wherein the game being played may result ina push. Process 200 begins at reference numeral 202 where the ratio ofthe amount to be retired to the amount of the original wager isdetermined. At reference numeral 204, one player or a group of playersis designated as the Player/Dealer. As a result, all the other playersplay against this Player/Dealer. At reference numeral 206, each playerand the Player/Dealer then makes a wager. At reference numeral 208,hands are dealt and played. The outcomes of each hand are determined,and as a result, wagers are won and lost. At reference numeral 210, aplayer is selected. At reference numeral 212, the outcome for theselected player is determined.

If the selected player loses, any wagers lost by the selected player arepaid to the Player/Dealer at reference numeral 214. At reference numeral216, funds are retired from the Player/Dealer wager. The amount of theretired funds is based on the predetermined ratio and the player'soriginal wager. At reference numeral 224, if there are any otherremaining players whose wager needs to be settled and there is moneystill left in the Player/Dealer wager, a player is selected from theseremaining players at reference numeral 210 and the selected player'soutcome is determined as previously discussed. If there are no remainingplayers whose wager needs to be settled or there is no money left in thePlayer/Dealer wager, then the process comes to an end. Optionally, theprocess may repeat at reference numeral 204, where a Player/Dealer isonce again designated.

At reference numeral 212, if there is a push, the process proceeds tostep 216 where funds are retired from the Player/Dealer wager aspreviously discussed.

At reference numeral 212, if the selected player has won, any wagers wonby the player are paid to the player from the Player/Dealer's wager atreference numeral 218. At step 220, it is determined whether or not theamount paid to the player covers the full amount to be retired based onthe predetermined ratio and the player's original wager. If the amountpaid does cover the full amount to be retired, then it is determinedwhether or not there are any other remaining players whose wager needsto be settled and whether there is money still left in the Player/Dealerwager at reference numeral 224. If the amount paid does not cover thefull amount to be retired, the remaining difference between the amountpaid and the full amount is retired from the Player/Dealer wager atreference numeral 222. The process then continues on to referencenumeral 224 where, as previously discussed, it is determined whether ornot there are any other remaining players whose wager needs to besettled and whether or not there is money still left in thePlayer/Dealer wager.

Although in the illustrative embodiment, funds are always retired whenthere is a push, those of ordinary skill in the art will realize thatthe rules could specify that these funds only be retired if there isanother sub-pool that would settle wagers after the funds in this poolare used up. The primary reason to retire funds on a push is that thealternative, not retiring the funds, hurts any sub-pools that settleafter this one. If the funds in this pool were not retired on a push,these funds might be used to settle other wagers, thereby cutting intothe action of these other sub-pools. As a result, the action on theseadditional sub-pools would be reduced and possibly even eliminated.However, if there are no additional sub-pools, then there is no one tohurt. Also, when there is no additional sub-pool, the casino would wantto give as many players as much action on their bets as possible.

Persons of ordinary skill in the art will also realize that there isanother possible rule variation. If the Player/Dealer pool is largeenough to cover all wagers on the table, even if money were normallyretired on pushes, in this situation no money would be retired onpushes. Only if there is a chance that the Player/Dealer fund would notcover all wagers, would funds be retired after pushes. This would speedup the game when retiring the funds doesn't affect anything.

In the illustrative embodiment, if a player surrenders, the full amountof four times the original wager is retired. However, those of ordinaryskill in the art will realize that other options might be used forsurrender. Only the original wager might be retired or only the amountsurrendered might be retired.

In the illustrative embodiment, an amount equal to the maximum a playercould win is retired. Those of ordinary skill in the art will realizethat many other formulas may be used. The amount retired could be basedon the amount of the original wager, the amount of money that changeshands, the casino's limit on maximum bet allowed, or a formula thatcombines these factors. For example, a casino might determine that for99% of the hands played, no more than three times the original betexchanges hands, and the casino could decide to retire three times theoriginal bet, even if occasionally a player may win or lose up to fourtimes the original wager. As long as an amount greater than the amountthat changes hands is retired on some occasions, that falls within thescope of the present invention.

In blackjack, there are other options available, which might beclassified as optional bets. The most common is called “Insurance”. Whenthe dealer's face-up card is an ace, the players have an option to beton whether the dealer has a “blackjack” which would occur if thedealer's facedown card is a ten, jack, queen, or king. Typically theinsurance bet pays 2-1, which means that a $100 insurance bet can win$200. This is completely separate from any wager on a hand, althoughtypically an insurance bet cannot exceed one-half the original bet on ahand.

Other optional bets may pay even larger amounts. For example, somecasinos allow an optional bet that pays 25-1 if the player is dealt aking and queen of the same suit. These optional bets might increase theamount of money a player can win in relation to the original wager andmight lead a casino to increase the amount that is retired and reservedwhen wagers are settled.

The present invention may also cover games where the players do notincrease the size of their wagers. There are games where the players maydecrease the amount of money they have at risk. For example, there is agame called “Let It Ride” where a player makes three wagers and may takeback one or more of these wagers as the game proceeds. When games likethis are played with a Player/Dealer and more money is retired from thePlayer/Dealer funds than changes hands, it falls within the scope ofthis invention.

There are also games where the amount wagered remains constant. In gameslike Pai Gow, Pai Gow Poker, baccarat, and many others, the player maywin or lose no more than the original wager. However, when played with aPlayer/Dealer and when there is a push, in the current state of the art,no money is retired. Under this invention, money could be retired inthese games in case of a push. If money is retired when no money changeshands, that would fall within the scope of the present invention.

After all the wagers made by all the players are settled, all theremaining Player/Dealer funds are returned to the player(s) who wageredthese funds. This does not fall into the scope of “retiring” funds asdescribed herein. If more funds than the amount of the wager are onlyreturned after all the wagers are settled, this does not fall within thescope of this invention. The present invention covers games where morethan the amount that changes hands may be retired when there are stillwagers to be settled.

Persons of ordinary skill in the art will realize that other mechanismscan be used that are the functional equivalent of retiring funds. Onesuch mechanism would to restrict the wagers that a Player/Dealer can winor lose. For example consider a game with five wagers of $100 each, anda Player/Dealer pool of $300. In most games a mechanism is used todetermine which wager gets settled first. Usually this is determined bya random event such as a dealt card or shaking dice in a dice cup. Forthe purposes of the examples given here, we will only consider a handwhere Seat 1's wager will be settled first.

If the rules of the game require retiring Player/Dealer funds on pushes,the Player/Dealer can only win, lose, or push with Seats 1, 2, and 3.After those wagers are settled, the Player/Dealer no longer has money atrisk.

An alternative method of achieving the same result is to limit thePlayer/Dealer's action to the amount of his wager. In one embodiment aphysical device indicates which wagers the Player/Dealer can win orlose. For example, a button labeled “Action” would be placed by thewager of Seat 1 and a second button labeled “Stop” or “No Action” wouldbe placed by the Wager of Seat 3. This second button could be called a“Stop Button”. This would indicate that the Player/Dealer's action onwagers starts on Seat 1 and ends once the wager on Seat 3 was settled.

Limiting the wagers that are settled against a Player/Dealer pool couldbe done in two ways, based either on specific wagers or an amount ofmoney. With five wagers of $100 each and a Player/Dealer pool of $300,the wagers that could be settled by the pool could be either specifiedas the first 3 wagers or the first $300. While the outcome is the samein this case, it might be different if the Player/Dealer pool were $250.In some embodiments, the Player/Dealer would be limited to action on thefirst two wagers, while in another embodiment the Player/Dealer would belimited to action on the first $250 which includes part of the thirdwager.

While a Stop Button or retiring funds achieve the same result and arefunctionally equivalent, the settling of the wagers would lookdifferent. If Hand 1 were to push with the Dealer hand, when pushes areretired, $100 would be removed from the Player/Dealer pool. With thelimit on bets getting action, the money could remain in thePlayer/Dealer pool, even though the amount that might be won or losewould be limited to the remaining $200 wagered on Seats 2 and 3.

There are a number of variations of how this method of limiting thewagers that get action might be implemented. As a non-limiting example,if the Player/Dealer wager covered only part of a wager, the rule couldbe that the Player/Dealer gets that portion of the action on that hand.Suppose that there are three wagers of $100 each and the Player/Dealerpool is $150. The Player/Dealer could be allowed to get full action onthe wager in Seat 1 and can win or lose $50 of Seat 2's $100 wager.

An alternative embodiment, which could be called “all or nothing”, wouldonly allow the Player/Dealer to get action on a hand if there is enoughmoney in the Player/Dealer pool to cover the entire wager on that hand.In this case, the Player/Dealer would be limited to winning or losing$100 on the hand dealt to Seat 1.

When the game allows a player to win a multiple of his wager, thePlayer/Dealer may be restricted to action on wagers that total less thanthe Player/Dealer wager. For example, in a blackjack game, thePlayer/Dealer may be restricted to action on wagers when there is twicethe amount of the wagers in the Player/Dealer pool. Consider a handwhere there are five wagers of $100 each and a Player/Dealer pool of$400. If the Player/Dealer may only get action if he can cover twice awager, the Player/Dealer would be limited to action on the first twohands only.

This method of settling wagers can also be used to insure than a gamewhich pays larger multiples of a wager is fair to the players. Considera game where there is a wager than can pay 100 to 1. If a player makes a$10 wager and the Player/Dealer only wagers $200, the player can losehis full wager but can only be paid 20 to 1 on the wager. By notcovering the full possible payout the Player/Dealer gets a very largeadvantage and the player is at a very large disadvantage. This is likelyto lead to players no longer making the wager, and casino would findthis undesirable.

This invention provides two mechanisms for dealing with this. The firstmechanism, “proportional action” limits how much the Player/Dealer canwin on a wager. If a Player/Dealer only covers 20% of the largestpossible player win, the Player/Dealer can only win 20% of the player'swager.

The second mechanism could be called “full action only”. In this case,if the Player/Dealer cannot cover 100% of the largest possible payout,the Player/Dealer gets no action on the wager at all. This mechanismwould work particularly well if there is a larger pool of money bankingbehind. The second bank might be large enough to pay the full amount ofthe largest possible payoff, In this case, the player gets a fair wager.

Many of these issues arise in games with a main game, a bonus bet, wherethere is banking behind. It is common that there is a player in a gamewith deeper pockets than the other players. This player might be willingto bank behind when the Player/Dealer does not wager enough to cover allthe wagers. This second banker often wagers enough to cover all thewagers.

This can create problem in a game with a main wager and a bonus bet. Forexample consider a game of Pai Gow Poker with a bonus bet. The regularwager pays even money when the player wins. There is often a bonus betadded which pays a multiple of the player's wager according to a paytable. For example, full house might pay 5 to 1 and a royal flush mightpay 100 to 1.

A problem can arise when the first banker (front banker) puts up enoughmoney to cover some or all of the regular bets, but not enough to coverthe bonus bets. Consider a situation where there are two players, eachof whom makes a regular wager of $100 and a bonus wager of $10 that canwin up to $1,000. Assume the first Player/Dealer puts up a pool of $200,and a second Player/Dealer puts up enough money to cover all the wagers.For the game to work, there needs to be a method that is fair to bothPlayer/Dealers and allows all the wagers to be settled.

If the outcome were that the first player won his wager, and won $1,000on the bonus bet, most of the conventional methods of settling wagerswouldn't work well. Suppose the first Player/Dealer pays the $100 winnerand then starts to pay the $1,000 bonus win. The first Player/Dealerdoesn't have enough money to pay it. Either the second Player/Dealermust pay the other $900 or the player doesn't get paid. Neither solutionis a good one.

If the second Player/Dealer pays the $900, this is unfair to the secondPlayer/Dealer. He or she must pay a winning wager, but has no chance towin a losing Bonus Bet.

On the other hand, if the second Player/Dealer does not pay the winningwager, the player who won the Bonus Bet doesn't get paid. This is not anacceptable outcome. No one will make a Bonus Bet if there is a chancethey will not get paid the full amount when they win a large amount. Theentire attraction of a Bonus Bet is a chance for winning a large amountof money.

A possible solution is to use the “full action only” method describedabove. Since the first Player/Dealer does not have enough money to coverthe largest possible win on the Bonus Bet, the first Player/Dealer getsno action on the Bonus Bet. The second Player/Dealer takes over when theBonus Bet is settled, whether the player wins a large amount, a smallamount, or loses.

While this solution is fair, it might not always work well. The firstPlayer/Dealer made a $200 wager, but will never get $200 in action. ManyPlayer/Dealers won't like this, and this discourages people from actingas Player/Dealer. Casinos frequently want to encourage people to act asPlayer/Dealer to keep the game going.

Another solution would be to switch between the two Player/Dealer pools.The first Player/Dealer settles the first regular bet. The secondPlayer/Dealer settles the bonus bet. Then the first Player/Dealersettles the second regular bet. While this accomplishes all the goals ofbeing fair to both Player/Dealers, giving the players full action ontheir Bonus Bets and giving the first Player/Dealer full action on hiswager, this may not be a good solution. Switching between Player/Dealerpools during the settlement of wagers could be confusing and lead todisputes. All of this would slow down the game, which casinos andplayers do not want.

The solution is a method that could be called “two-pass settlement”.With this method, all the regular bets are settled first, and then theBonus Bets are settled. If the settlement started with Seat 1 and wentto Seat 2, the order would be:

Seat 1 regular bet,

Seat 2 regular bet

-   -   Seat 1 Bonus bet    -   Seat 2 Bonus bet

In the example above with two $100 wagers and a $200 Player/Dealer poolas the front bank, the first Player/Dealer would settle both regularbets, and the second Player/Dealer would settle both Bonus Bets. If thefirst Player/Dealer had wagered $1,200 instead, he would settle bothregular bets and the first Bonus Bet.

In this embodiment of two-pass settlement, the wager with the smallerpotential payout is settled for each player first. Those of ordinaryskill in the art will realize that a method could be used where thewager with the larger possible payoff is settled first. In practice anyorder would be possible. In a game with a wager than a hand will win anda wager that a hand will tie, either wager could be settled in the firstpass with the other settled in the second pass. Sometimes themathematics of the game will make one order work better than the otherfor the purposes of the casino.

The illustrative embodiment shows a two-pass settlement mechanism. Thoseof ordinary skill in the art will realize that more than two passes arepossible. If there were three distinct wagers in a game, there might bethree passes around the table where all wagers of the first type weresettled, then all wagers of the second type, and then all wagers of thethird type.

Multiple passes could be used in a game like blackjack where the amountwagered can change during a hand. During the first pass, all hands witha double-down wager or split pairs could be settled. Then all handswhere only the original wager is at stake could be settled. FinallyBonus Bet wagers, if they are allowed in this blackjack game would besettled. Wagers on surrendered hands could be part of any pass orsettled in a separate pass. This is just one illustration of how thisinvention could be applied to a blackjack game.

FIG. 3 illustrates an exemplary embodiment of the Base and Reserve Bankmechanism of the present invention. Process 300 begins at referencenumeral 302 where the ratio of the amount to be retired to the amount ofthe original wager is determined. At reference numeral 304, one playeror a group of players is designated as the Player/Dealer. As a result,all the other players play against this Player/Dealer. At referencenumeral 306, each player and the Player/Dealer then makes a wager.

At reference numeral 308, each Player/Dealer wager is divided into aBase Bank and a Reserve Bank. As discussed above, the Base Bank is apredetermined portion of the Player/Dealer's pool that is only used tosettle the amount that the selected player wagered at the start of play.The Reserve Bank is another predetermined portion of the Player/Dealer'spool that is only used to settle any additional wagers or pay anybonuses. These predetermined portions are preferably determined by theratio discussed above. The Base Bank and the Reserve bank may eachcomprise more than one bank. For example, the Reserve Bank may bedivided into two banks, one bank to only be used for paying bonuses anda second bank to only be used for settling additional wagers. While thisFIG. 3 shows this Base and Reserve Bank division occurring in betweenparticular steps, it is contemplated that this division may take placeat any time prior to the settling of wagers.

At reference numeral 310, hands are dealt and played. The outcomes ofeach hand are determined, and as a result, wagers are won and lost. Atreference numeral 312, a player is selected. At reference numeral 314,one of the selected player's wagers is selected for settlement. Atreference numeral 316, it is determined whether or not the selectedplayer wager is the original wager.

If the selected player wager is the original wager, it is thendetermined at reference numeral 318 whether or not the selected playerwon. If the player won, the original wager is paid to the player fromthe Base Bank at reference numeral 320. It is then determined atreference numeral 322 whether or not the selected player has any otherwagers to be settled. If there are still wagers to be settled, a wageris selected once again at reference numeral 314. If there is not anotherwager to be settled for the selected player, it is determined atreference numeral 324 whether or not the total amount of the selectedplayer's wagers covers the full amount to be retired. If the additionalwager does cover the full amount to be retired, the process thencontinues on to reference numeral 326 where it is determined whether ornot there are any other remaining players whose wager needs to besettled and if there is money still left in the Player/Dealer wager. Ifthere is another player whose wager needs to be settled and there isstill money left in the Player/Dealer wager, a player is selected fromthese remaining players at reference numeral 312 and the selectedplayer's outcome is determined as previously discussed. If there are noremaining players whose wager needs to be settled or there is no moneyleft in the Player/Dealer wager, then the process comes to an end.Optionally, the process may repeat at reference numeral 304, where aPlayer/Dealer is once again designated. At reference numeral 324, if thetotal amount of the selected player's wagers does not cover this fullretirement amount, then funds are retired from the Reserve Bank atreference numeral 328. It is then determined at reference numeral 326whether or not there are any other remaining players whose wager needsto be settled and if there is money still left in the Player/Dealerwager, as previously discussed.

At reference numeral 318, if the selected player has not won, any wagerslost by the selected player are paid to the Player/Dealer at referencenumeral 330. At step 332, funds are retired from the Base Bank. It isthen determined at reference numeral 322 whether or not the selectedplayer has any other wagers to be settled, as previously discussed.

If at reference numeral 316 it is determined that the selected playerwager is not the original wager, but rather an additional wager, it isthen determined at reference numeral 334 whether or not the selectedplayer won. If the player won, this additional wager is paid to theplayer from the Reserve Bank at reference numeral 336. At referencenumeral 322, it is determined whether or not the selected player has anyother wagers to settle, as previously discussed.

At reference numeral 334, if the selected player has not won, any wagerslost by the selected player are paid to the Player/Dealer at referencenumeral 338. At reference numeral 340, funds are retired from theReserve Bank. It is then determined at reference numeral 322 whether ornot the selected player has any other wagers to be settled, aspreviously discussed.

FIG. 4 illustrates an embodiment of the two-pass settlement of a gamewith a regular bet and a Bonus Bet allowed. After all the wagers aremade and the hands are played, the settlement of bets begins atreference numeral 400. At reference numeral 402, the first regular betto be settled is identified. Proceeding to reference numeral 404, thisbet is settled. Next, at reference numeral 406, it is determined whetherall the regular bets have been settled. If they have not, the processproceeds to reference numeral 408, where the next regular bet to besettles is identified, and from there to reference numeral 404 wherethis bet is settled.

If at reference numeral 404, it is determined that no more regular betsremain to be settled, the process proceeds to reference numeral 410,where the first Bonus Bet is identified. Proceeding to reference numeral412, this Bonus Bet is settled. Next, at reference numeral 414, it isdetermined whether all the Bonus Bets have been settled. If they havenot, the process proceeds to reference numeral 416, where the nextregular bet to be settles is identified, and from there to referencenumeral 412 where this bet is settled.

If at reference numeral 414, it is determined that all the Bonus Betshave been settled, the process of settling bets is complete and ends.

The illustrated embodiment uses a mechanism called “Base and ReserveBanks” to facilitate this method of retiring and reserving funds. Underthis mechanism, every Player/Dealer pool or sub-pool is divided into aBase Bank and a Reserve Bank before any wagers are settled. Ifone-quarter of the funds are used to settle original wagers, then theBase Bank will consist of one-quarter of the Player/Dealer pool orsub-pool and the remaining funds are “reserved” to cover bonuses andadditional wagers. The remaining three-quarters is the Reserve Bank. Asthe wagers are settled, each original wager is settled from the BaseBank. Any bonuses are paid and any additional wagers (such as splits ordouble downs) are settled from the Reserve Bank. When all this isfinished, enough money is returned to the Player/Dealer(s) who fundedthis pool to retire three times the original wager from the Reserve Bankfor this pool.

While the illustrated embodiment reveals a mechanism with two banks,those of ordinary skill in the art will realize that the Player/Dealerpool could be divided into more than two banks. For example, one bankmight only be used to settle the original wagers, a second might be usedto pay bonuses on blackjacks, and yet another pool might be used tosettle additional wagers. Or if there are other bonuses, a third bankmight be uses to settle those. Many other variations are possible.

Those of ordinary skill in the art will realize that there are othermechanisms that could be used to implement the invention. For example,one method is to simply settle the wagers and retire the funds from thePlayer/Dealer pool or sub-pool. For example, a player might make a $100bet in blackjack and due to split pairs the player might win $200 on twohands and lose $100 on a third. If the amount to retire were four timesthe original wager, the player would be paid $200 from the pool, $100would be removed when the losing bet is collected and an additional $100would be removed from the pool and given back to the Player/Dealer. Ifthere were less than $400 in the pool or sub-pool, the wagers would besettled according to the proportion available and money would bereserved to settle bonuses and additional bets.

Another possible method is to separate out the funds at the time ofsettlement. If a total of $400 is to be either paid to the player orretired, that $400 is separated from the main Player/Dealer pool into a“Settlement Pool”. All the wagers for that original wager are settledfrom that Settlement Pool. In the example above, $200 is paid to theplayer, and the $100 losing bet is given to the Player/Dealer. The restis returned to the Player/Dealer and retired from action. If theSettlement Pool were less than the full $400, the wagers would besettled accordingly. The Settlement Pool could also be divided into aBase Bank and Reserve Bank, where these banks are only used to settlewagers on one hand. The use of the Settlement Pool is an innovation andis covered by the present invention.

The illustrated embodiment involves the use of “Base Bank” and “ReserveBank”. These banks are formed by dividing each sub-pool of thePlayer/Dealer pool into two or more portions. The use of the word “bank”here does not mean that the funds come from that casino or that this isa “banking game”. It is used to describe a division of pools of money.

These methods of retiring and reserving funds are a significantimprovement over the current state of the art. The reserve featureinsures that the amount a player can win, compared to the amount he canlose, does not go down because the Player/Dealer wager is small. As aresult the game is fairer to the players. The retirement features insurethat Player/Dealer wagers after the first sub-pool are not at adisadvantage. The result of these features is that the players are morelikely to get full action on their wagers, improving the game for allparties and increasing casino revenues.

While the invention has been described with reference to an exemplaryembodiment, it will be understood by those skilled in the art thatvarious changes and modifications may be made and equivalents may besubstituted for elements thereof without departing from the spirit andscope of the invention as defined in the appended claims. In addition,many modifications may be made to adapt a particular situation ormaterial to the teachings without departing from the essential scopethereof. Therefore, it is intended that the invention not be limited tothe particular embodiment disclosed.

1. A method of playing a game between players comprising: designating atleast one player as the Player/Dealer, wherein all other players areplaying against this Player/Dealer; having the at least one player makea wager that comprises one or more pools of Player/Dealer funds;determining in which order the pools are to be used to settle wagerswhen there is more than one pool of Player/Dealer funds; making one ormore wagers on a hand by each player; identifying a subset of playerwagers before any wagers are settled when the funds in the firstPlayer/Dealer pool used to settle wagers might not be sufficient tocover all the player wagers; playing a hand by each player and thePlayer/Dealer, wherein the outcome of each hand determines whetherwagers are won or lost; and settling only the player wagers in saidsubset using the funds in the first Player/Dealer pool.
 2. The method ofclaim 1 wherein, when the funds in the second Player/Dealer pool used tosettle wagers might not be sufficient to cover all the player wagers notin said subset, identifying a second subset of player wagers before anywagers are settled and only the player wagers in said second subset aresettled using the funds in the second Player/Dealer pool.
 3. The methodof claim 1 further including a using a physical indicator to identifythe last wager in said subset of player wagers that will be settledusing the funds in the first player pool.
 4. The method of claim 3wherein a button is used as the physical indicator to identify the lastwager in said subset of player wagers that will be settled using thefunds in the first player pool.
 5. A method of playing a game betweenplayers comprising: designating at least one player as thePlayer/Dealer, wherein all other players are playing against thisPlayer/Dealer; having the at least one player make a wager thatcomprises one or more pools of Player/Dealer funds; determining in whichorder the pools are to be used to settle wagers when there is more thanone pool of Player/Dealer funds; making one or more wagers on a hand byeach player; identifying a portion of the total money in the playerwagers when the funds in the first Player/Dealer pool used to settlewagers might not be sufficient to cover all the player wagers; playing ahand by each player and the Player/Dealer, wherein the outcome of eachhand determines whether wagers are won or lost; and settling only playerwagers up to said portion of the total money in the player wager usingthe funds in the first Player/Dealer pool.
 6. The method of claim 5further including: identifying a second portion of the money in theplayer wagers when the funds in the second Player/Dealer pool used tosettle wagers might not be sufficient to cover all the player wagers notin said subset; and settling only the player wagers in said secondportion using the funds in the second Player/Dealer pool.
 7. A method ofplaying a game between players comprising: designating at least oneplayer as the Player/Dealer, wherein all other players are playingagainst this Player/Dealer; making a wager by the at least one playerthat comprises one or more pools of Player/Dealer funds; determining inwhich order the pools are to be used to settle wagers when there is morethan one pool of Player/Dealer funds; making at least one wager on ahand by each player; playing a hand by each player and thePlayer/Dealer, wherein the outcome of each hand determines whetherwagers are won or lost; and retiring the remaining funds in thatPlayer/Dealer pool when the amount of money left in a Player/Dealer poolis not sufficient to cover the largest possible payout on a playerwager.
 8. A method of playing a game between players comprising:designating at least one player as the Player/Dealer, wherein all otherplayers are playing against this Player/Dealer; making a wager by the atleast one player that comprises one or more pools of Player/Dealerfunds; determining in which order the pools are to be used to settlewagers when there is more than one pool of Player/Dealer funds; makingat least one wager on a hand by each; playing a hand by each player andthe Player/Dealer, wherein the outcome of each hand determines whetherwagers are won or lost; and when the amount of money left in aPlayer/Dealer pool is not sufficient to cover the largest possiblepayout on a player wager, that Player/Dealer pool only wins a portion ofthe player's wager when the player loses the wager.
 9. The method ofclaim 8 wherein the fraction of the player wager the Player/Dealer canwin is the same as the fraction of the largest possible player win thatis in the Player/Dealer pool.
 10. A method of playing a game betweenplayers comprising: identifying a predetermined subset of possibleplayer wagers prior to any wagers being made and the start of play;designating one player or group of players as the Player/Dealer, whereinall other players are playing against this Player/Dealer; making a wagerby the at least one player that comprises one or more pools ofPlayer/Dealer funds; determining in which order the pools are to be usedto settle wagers when there is more than one pool of Player/Dealerfunds; making a wager by on a hand by each; playing a hand by eachplayer and the Player/Dealer, wherein the outcome of each handdetermines whether wagers are won or lost; and settling all the wagersin the predetermined subset of possible player wagers before settlingplayer wagers that are not in the predetermined subset.
 11. The methodof claim 10 wherein said subset contains one or more type of wager witha pre-determined criterion for winning and excludes one or more type ofwager with a different pre-determined criterion for winning.